Sexual Offenders: The Jacob Wetterling Act Of 1994

Sexual offenders are and have always been a massive issue within society. Committing crimes against some of the most vulnerable members of society is something that has always been seen as taboo. Dating back to 1994, this was where the first law was passed surrounding sexual offenses. Being the first version of the law, this was named the Jacob Wetterling Act of 1994. This law required every state to maintain a registry of sexual offenders, but it was only available to law enforcement personnel. However, soon after, this system and law were challenged with the case of Megan Kanka. Megan was a seven-year-old girl, who was raped and killed by a well-known and convicted sex offender. With him living just across the street from her family, they

Looking into the arguments for, the first factor would be the decrease in recidivism rates for these offenders. According to data gathered by the Arizona Department of Corrections between 1984 to 1998, the recidivism rate of sex offenders stood at approximately 5.5%. Showing fourteen years of data before the program was first implemented, this tended to be rather high. Facing limited publicity for their criminal actions, these offenders were able to detach from a large amount of the stigma and carry on living their lives without complete consequence. In comparison, after Megan’s law had been enacted, statistics have shown that their recidivism rates have decreased. Dropping down to approximately 3.5%, they are now classified as the class of offenders that are least likely to re-offend in the same criminal activity. Pulling in these large changes in the statistics, it would be fair to assume that the program is working on the statistical front. A further example of why this law is effective is through a study done by the Washington State Institute of Public Policy. This showed that the recidivism rates of registered sex offenders had decreased by 70% comparing it to pre-notification. Being an extremely significant and bold number, it is important to note that the author concluded that this may not be directly related to notification, as other factors may have contributed. However, in saying

Although beforehand I was completely stuck on the idea that it was a necessary system, after researching and finding out the facts of this law, I feel that it should be taken out. The fact that it actually causes more harm to society than good is a factor that we definitely need to take into account. Although the idea was bright and the meaning behind it is positive, the overall impacts that it has had on not only the offenders involved but society as a whole has been negative in my opinion. Looking into the unsafe environments and the stereotypical information that these offenders face on a daily is something that significantly impacted me. Often giving them no chance to rehabilitate but rather just punishment, is something that I don’t see as moral and just. By taking into consideration the ethical approach of utilitarianism which I feel is extremely important, it is evident that this law does not provide the greatest good for the greatest number as this system in my opinion is not preventing crime like the law was meant to do. Rather, using the approach of retribution to make sure the offender can ever get past their crime and develop for the